MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 299, 11 September 1908, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

.• . JB, W|&i g3 noin : V. . ' : < (Before Mr. W.'G. Riddell, S.M.) ; ; A young man named Charles' Donald Hoskins, alias Hoskvns, pleaded guilty to a charge of 'having, on September 9, stolen a covert- coat valued at '£2 15s.'-,'tho' property; of • tho • Dominion Clothing Company. Evidence was given that Constable Carmody saw accused going into a second-hand" shop with a coat on his arm. The man came out without' the coat, and when' approached by tho constable admitted stealing, it.. A ■ sentence of 14 days' imprisonment was imposed. John Forrest Perry failed to-appear in answer .to a charge of . disorderly conduct in Thorndon Quay whilst drunk. After hearing the evidence, his Worship entered a. conviction and fine of 205., in default 48 hours' imprisonment. < •' . John Hislop, charged with insobriety, was convicted ana fined 205., in default 7 days' imprisonment. Georgo Clarke, similarly charged, was convicted and fined 10s/, in default 48 hours' imprisonment ; and Andrew Jacobs was remanded for medical treatment, the police stating that he was unable to leave the cell. . ,jf _ CIYILBUSINE^./ (Before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment for plaintiff, by' default of defendant was entered in tho ■ following civil cases: — Universal Supply Co., Ltd. (in liquidation) v. Matilda Burgess, £6'6s. 2d., costs £1 3s. 6d.; samo v. Bella Sage, £3 55., costs 10s.; E. H. Crease and Son, Ltd., v. •H. Storey, £2 19s. .10d., costs £1.; Dickerson and. Co. v. G. D. Jones,. £5, costs 10s.; F._ C. -Hjorring and Co. v. Estato. of Joseph Petrie, deceased, £200, costs £8 195.; John Duthie and Co., Ltd. v. John Cook, £16' 7s. ;4d., costs 175.; Wellington Publishing' Co., Ltd. v. Ernest Aitkeu, £36 lis; 6d., copts £1' 3sV; Commercial Agency, Ltd., as assignee aud Briscoe and Co., Ltd., assignor, -v.i John C. Sims,"£3l, costs'"£2 "l'4s.; New,' Zealand Tiines Co., Ltd., v. J J L. Munson and Sous, 75., costs only; Commercial Agency, Ltd., assignee, and tho Wellington Gas Co., Ltd., assignor, v. Mrs; Roso A. Swinera; £5 Bs. Id., costs £1 ss. 6d.; Voitch and Allan v. W. Joe Gett, 55.,' costs only; Commercial Agency, Ltd., assignee, and Wm. : Bannatyne and Co., Ltd., assignor, v.~Wm. Guffin, £2 12s. 4d., costs. 175.; Dresden Piano do., Ltd.,'v. James Astwood, £5 16s. 4d., costs £1 6s.' 6d.; Michael'M'Grath v.' Joseph James Moore, 13s. 3d.,. costs 95.; Wellington Traders' Agency as assignees of Kempthorne, Prosser and Co.'s New Zealand Drug Co., Ltd., v. Alfred -Rayner, £23 14s. Id., costs £2 145.; Morris Fruhauf v. Joseph Amoretty, £34, costs £2 145.; Green and Davis v. Joseph Wi Neera, £1S 17s. 4d., costs £2 os. 6d. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. . In the judgment summons case, H. Osborne and Co., v. -Georgo -Peek, a debt of £4 155., debtor: was ordered to pay . on or before September 24,' in default 7 days' imprisonment. In tho caso T. H. Coltraan v. P. Kearney, a debt, of £4 10s., debtor was . ordered to pay on or 1 before September 24, in default 7 days' imprisonment. . No order was made m tho caso Rouse and Hurrell Carriage Building Co., .Ltd., v. Roland 13. Pegley, a debt of £22 9s. 9d. RESERVED JUDGMENTS. : LIABILITY OF A MINOR. Tho question of tho liability of a niinor was doalt with by Mr. lliddell, S.M., in his • reserved decision in the caso David Laing (Mr. Dunn) v. Sydney J. Hanson (Mr. Blair), an action- based on a promissory note given by defendant, an infant, for the recovery of £10 Bs., part payment for a certain piece of land. Tho special plea of infancy was entered liy defendant, and evide'neo showed that lie would not be 21 years of ago until February, 1909. His.. Worship .-.thought the caso must be decided on the authority of M'Fer-' ran. v. M'Ferran,. 15, N.Z.L.R., 292,/ which stated that an- infant who entered into' a contract with respect to a subject having ■ a permanent nature was bound by the contract, unless he repudiated it- within a reasonablo time after he attained the ago of 21 years. Defendant might not actually havo said that ho intended' to repudiate lus contract with

1 1 J ■' ■».' 9. | plaintiff, but he had not yet entered-into i possession of the. property and I lie was still an infant. The contract* was i voidable by defendant within a reasonable' time after ho attained the age of 21, and ■ that being so. plaintiff could not succeed while J defendant was under that age. Plaintiff ! would be nonsuited without costs. "RETURNED EMPTIES." • i The return of empty aerated water bottles ' was the subject of a reserved judgment given ! . by Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M., in the base A, 51. . ! Lewis (Mr. Morrison) v. the Wellington Steam Forry Company, • Limited (Mr. Dal- 1 ziell), a claim for £43 15s. for the non-return of_ 350 dozen bottles, which had been .supplied to the defendant company for sale at ■ Day's Bay, plaintiff alleging that the bottles I wero to bo returned wiiciv empty within a. reasonable time. His Worship considered: the arrangement between-the parties was -the I usual ono between those engaged in this class . of business. Plaintiff supplied defendants 1 with full bottles of aerated waters at a certain price, it. being distinctly understood that the bottles,; which'are more valuable than the contents, should be returned. In.ordinary hotel business, bottles were returned virtu- i ally each weekday, and as a consequence could <. be used by plaintiff from 10 to 15 times a month but in tho case of private customers the returns might only be made once or'twice a, month. _ In the present case the circumstances were different, defendants having ] the least i time to attend to returns when plaintiff most ' i needed tho bottles.- The-Court found that i if; bottles were not returncdit was ;tbe cus-, : torn of the trade that they should be paid for,. 1 always, however, allowing a good margin for. . loss and breakages? Early this year defendants ' made arrangements to get their from ..' a firm other-than plaintiff,' and-then'.the question; of returns came to the fro.nt. _ The. -• only record of returns was kept, byr.plaintiff,. / and the Court considered , his books satisfac- . i tory in this as well as other particular's.- His; -'; Worship considered tho defendant company,; | was bound to use tho bottles in a proper and reasonable manner, and return' thenv' atvthe. • time appointed for their, return or .within a .... j reasonable time after request, if no.definite;, 1 time had been agreed upon; the bottles to be •: in the condition they were delivered by plain- . j tiff, subject to.the deterioration produced - by.-..; wear and tear' and reasonable'"use, and by :! injuries caused .through no fault or neglect on the part of defendants. The defendant company had had the bottles, and should show • why it could not return them. In tho opinion of the Court there was a'contract between '' tho parties that the bottles were tb b<s"re- - turned in a reasonable time, and failing such return tho shortage was to be paid-for. • Al- ' lowing a deduction for breakages, etc?, judgment would be for plaintiff for £35 18s. "4d.. and costs £4 25., the amount to be reduced by any 'goods or bottles returned at invoice prices. • ' ' LANDLORD AND, TENANT. { His Worship also delivered judgment in the case Kate Ellen Sample (Mr: Dunn) v. Fred- ■ erick Jas. Sbelton (Mr. Dix). . . • Plaintiff stated that by agreemeut dated March 20, 1905, she demised to the defendant part of Section 691, City of Wellington. It was a term of tho lease that the lessee ' should pay and discharge all rates, taxes, assessments, and-impositions . levied or to be levied on the premises. Tho defendant made ■ default in the payment of rates, and plaintiff was compelled to pay tho, sum ,of £16 • , ■16s. to tho '"Wellington City Council for rates ; diie for the year ending. March 31,'1908:.;. : Further, plaintiff agreed to sell to defendant; -' a piano for the sum of £40, to bo paid- by.j. ; equal monthly payments of £1, with interest ; ; at tho rate, of 8 per cent, per annum. There t: was now due by defendant under the agree- • ' ment £7 Ss. 7d.- Plaintiff, therefore,, claimed...".' from dofendant tho two sums of £16 16s. and £7 Bs. 7d. - , With regard ta tho first part of the claim, " > his Worship said the lease terminated inMarch, 1907, and the tenant held over by consent of the landlord, and was still in posses- ' sion. There was, therefore, after the deter- ' mutation of .the.-lease,, a tenancy, with no_, j agreement as,to>il3..dUratibh.' Such.'a ten-■ ancy was now .deemed to be a, .tenancy deter- ' minable .at:'the^'(i'iirbf;Wther' , .of'ihe parties by ono month's, notice in writing.; Defendant,: therefore, contend6d. that as .he was merely a tenant from'niontli" to month,-hd was responsible .for the rent only; and not ' for.the taxes.' After quoting authorities toshow that,' "if there be' a'lease for a-yeafi 1 ■ ■'" and, by the consent 1 of both parties, ' the • J tenant continue -in possession', the' law im- •• plies a tacit renovation of the contract;'-They • are supposed to have renewed the old con 1" tract." Therefore, in his Worship's opinion, the defendant was, holding under the same conditions and terms as those of the lease which had been determined, and was, therefore, liable for the amount of rates claimed, £16 16s. r . ' As to tho terms on. which tho piano was bought, there was a distinct conflict between plaintiff and defendant. This throw the Court back on. documentary evidence. The -' receipt. was, of' course, hot an estoppel, but ' considering the conflict, it must have a cer-. tain weight.- It stated:—"The piano.is now ■ the property of' Mr. F. J.' Sbelton."' The draft agreement or bailment, whatever it purported to 'he, was never signed by defendant, and, moreover, the letters of plaintiff's ■ " solicitor never spoke, of the..sale, of, the piano. Whero interest, was concerned, his-/Worship thought it only right that .-direct evidence._ should bo given of the agreement with re- ,- gard to it. He could hot allow the amount . claimed for interest on the sale of the. , was, therefore, entered for plain- 1 tiff for £16 m, and costs £2 6s. At Mount Cook Police "Court yesterdayi'be- • fore Mr. T. S. Lambert, J.P., William ; Smith, for drunkenness, was fined 205., with the option of three days in gaol., James Barron . pleaded guilty to insobriety, and was fined, 10s/, in default 48 hours' imprisonment. Al-j ' bert John Mason, for drunkenness, fined; 55., with the usual alternative. Two first '• ■ offenders were convicted and discharged. . •